Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Posted on 25 July 2017 by Zeke Hausfather

Over the past two centuries, the times of day, locations and methods of measuring temperature have all changed dramatically. For example, where once researchers lowered buckets over the side of ships to collect water for measuring, we now have a global network of automated buoys floating around the oceans measuring the water directly.

This complicates matters for scientists putting together a long-term, consistent estimate of how global temperatures are changing. Scientists must adjust the raw data to take into account all the differences in how, when and where measurements were taken.

These adjustments have long been a heated point of debate. Many climate sceptics like to argue that scientists “exaggerate” warming by lowering past temperatures and raising present ones.

Christopher Booker, a climate sceptic writing in the Sunday Telegraph in 2015, called them “the greatest scientific scandal in history”. A new report from the rightwing US thinktank, the Cato Institute, even claims that adjustments account for “nearly all the warming” in the historical record.

But analysis by Carbon Brief comparing raw global temperature records to the adjusted data finds that the truth is much more mundane: adjustments have relatively little impact on global temperatures, particularly over the past 50 years.

In fact, over the full period when measurements are available, adjustments actually have the net effect of reducing the amount of long-term warming that the world has experienced.

Raw data shows more global warming

Land and ocean temperatures are adjusted separately to correct for changes to measurement methods over time. All the original temperature readings from both land-based weather stations and ocean-going ships and buoys are publically available and can be used to create a “raw” global temperature record.

The figure below shows the global surface temperature record created from only raw temperature readings with no adjustments applied (blue line). The red line is the adjusted land and ocean temperature record produced using adjusted data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the difference between the two in grey.

Global mean adjusted and raw surface temperature. See note at the end for technical details on this analysis. Anomalies plotted with respect to a 1961-1990 baseline. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

You can see that adjustments to the data have relatively little effect on global temperatures after 1950. The rate of warming between 1950 and 2016 in the adjusted data is just under 10% faster than the raw data, and only 4% faster since the start of the modern warming period in 1970.

The adjustments that have a big impact on the surface temperature record all occur before 1950. Here, past temperatures are adjusted up – significantly reducing the warming over the past century. Over the full 1880-2016 period, the adjusted data actually warms more than 20% slower than the raw data. The large adjustments before 1950 are due almost entirely to changes in the way ships measured temperatures (more on that later).

Adjustments to land temperatures

So, looking at data adjustments more closely, why and how are land-based temperature measurements adjusted?

A single weather station will likely see many changes over the decades that it is in use. Few stations remain in exactly the same place over very long periods, with most stations experiencing at least one move to a new location. Most stations have also changed the way they measure temperatures, transitioning from liquid-in-glass thermometers to electronic instruments. Stations have often changed the time of daythey measure temperatures, and growing cities and urban areas can introduce artificial warming in some stations. Very local factors, such as trees growing over stations or poor station siting, can also cause problems.

To correct for differences in a temperature record caused by these changes, known as inhomogeneities, scientists employ an approach known as statistical homogenization. They compare each station to all of its nearby neighbours and look for changes that are local to one station, but not found at any others in the area. Over long periods of time, climate changes are very rarely local, so localised changes not seen at surrounding stations are most likely due to something such as a station move or instrument change.

For example, if one station is warming over the course of a decade, while all the surrounding stations are cooling, that station would be flagged as “inhomogenous” and its record would be corrected to bring it back in line with its neighbours.

Disruptions of station records associated with station moves, time of observation changes, and even urbanisation tend to only affect one station in a region at a time, and can be easily picked up by neighbour comparisons.

The figure below shows the net effect of all the adjustments to land stations to the global land temperature record. Adjustments increase the overall land temperature warming by 16% between 1880 and 2016. Most of this is concentrated in the earlier part of the temperature record. Since 1970, adjustments only increase warming by 3%.

Adjustments to land temperatures do have larger effects in some particular regions – such as in the US and Africa – but these tend to average out when looking at the global land surface record.

Global adjusted and raw land temperatures. Anomalies plotted with respect to a 1961-1990 baseline. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

Scientists have gone to great lengths to test the methods they use to adjust land stations to ensure that they are accurately detecting and correcting problems without introducing spurious warming or cooling. This includes benchmarkingstudies – testing their approach on data with different types of errors added to it.

While much has been made about adjustments to individual land stations that increase warming, these are often extreme cases cherry-picked to make a point. When adjustments to all stations are considered, just as many reduce warming as increase warming, as shown in the figure below from NOAA.

Histogram of NOAA adjustments to land temperature stations outside the US in an old (blue) and new (red) version of their adjustment algorithm. Details and additional US figures can be found on the NOAA website.

Here, roughly half of all corrections reduce the temperature and half increase it. For example, one station in Darwin, Australia has been adjusted to show more warming to account for a station move and shelter change in the 1940s. Yet the adjustment of another station – this time a station in Tokyo, Japan – has reduced the warming it shows to correct for the urban heat island effect of an expanding city.

Scientists have also worked to improve the number of land temperature records available to use by collecting and digitising old temperature records from around the world. New efforts such as the International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project have worked to increase the number of historical land stations available by around 500%, compared to prior station collections, and provided better coverage of the Earth’s regions, as shown in the figure below.

Number of land stations available in the old NOAA station collection (black) and the new International Surface Temperature Initiative collection (red). Figure from ISTI.

Adjustments to ocean temperatures

Improvements to temperature measurements aren’t limited to the land – perhaps even more significant advances have come in how temperatures are measured in our oceans.

The biggest adjustment by far is the switch from bucket-based measurements to engine intakes in ships in the 1930s and 1940s. This is the “only one that matters” globally, says Maynooth University researcher Dr Peter Thorne, who has worked with NOAA to develop their ocean temperature record.

Prior to 1940, most ships measured temperatures by throwing a bucket overboard into the water, pulling it up onto the deck by rope, and sticking a thermometer in the bucket to measure the temperature of the water. The problem is that air temperatures are often much warmer or colder than ocean temperatures. As the bucket is slowly pulled up onto deck, the water will heat up or cool down.

During the 1930s and 1940s, most ships switched to measuring temperatures through engine room intakes. Ships pull seawater in through the hull to cool the engine and the temperature of the water was taken as it came in. This resulted in temperature readings quite a bit different than when using buckets, since – despite the fact that engine rooms are warm – the water had little time to warm up or cool down before being measured.

The raw and adjusted ocean temperature records are shown in the figure below, with the bucket adjustments quite prominent at around 0.3C.

The large pre-1940 bucket adjustments greatly reduce the long-term warming in the record, resulting in 36% less warming since 1880 than in the raw temperature data. In recent years, adjustments to ocean temperatures slightly increase the rate of warming by around 4%.

Since 1990, the way that oceans temperatures are measured has changed once again. While about 90% of measurements came from ships 20 years ago, today almost 80% come from buoys floating in the ocean. These buoys are in direct contact with the water and end up reading temperatures slightly lower than measurements taken in engine room intakes.

To correct for a cool bias introduced by adding cooler buoy data to warmer ship data, temperatures are adjusted slightly upwards for recent years. This fact proved quite controversial with the publication of a paper by Tom Karl and colleagues in 2015, but has since been validated by other studies. The net effect of these buoy-related adjustments, however, is relatively small.

Records from many different groups

It’s also worth noting that adjustments to temperature records are not decided by one single group of scientists. Rather, multiple different research teams have independently created their own land and ocean temperature records.

While much of the underlying raw data is the same, each takes a somewhat different approach to adjustments and how to deal with areas of the earth with missing data. The resulting global temperature records from five different groups, along with the raw data, are shown in the figure below.

NOAA and NASA share the same adjustment approach for land and oceans, though NASA applies an additional correction for urban heat islands that gives stations in cities less weight. The record jointly produced by the UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has its own approach of relying mostly on national meteorological offices to adjust the data within their own countries. It also has its own separate ocean temperature record with its own adjustment approach. The temperature record by researchers Cowtan and Way simply use Hadley data with a different approach for areas with missing data, such as the polar regions.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which was founded as an independent non-governmental group to independently assess surface temperature records, has its own unique approach for adjusting land records. This detects problems at local stations and cuts the station record at the point where the problem is found. Everything after that point is considered to be a new station. For sea surface temperatures, Berkeley uses Hadley’s adjusted ocean record.

Changing versions of temperature datasets

Those sceptical of temperature adjustments have often tried to show their impact by comparing older and newer versions of the same temperature record. The problem with this approach is that it risks conflating changes in data availability, methodology and adjustments.

However, even if different versions of prior records are compared, the changes over time between records are generally relatively small. The charts below show different versions of the NASA and Hadley/UEA datasets published over the past 30 years.

5-year running mean comparisons of past and current versions of the Hadley/UEA record (top) and NASA record (bottom). Anomalies plotted with respect to a 1961-1990 baseline. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

Subsequent updates to datasets after the mid-1990s are actually quite small and mostly reflect factors such as increased station data availability in the Arctic and recent adjustments such as the ship-buoy transition corrections. It’s only when you compare them to global temperature estimates from the 1980s that larger differences emerge.

This is because early 1980s estimates of global temperatures had much less data to work with. Scientists had yet to undertake the painstaking work of collecting and digitising much of the world’s temperature records from paper logbooks.

In 1981, for example, NASA relied on only a few hundred land stations almost entirely in the Northern Hemisphere to estimate global temperatures. Their temperature record did not even use any sea surface temperature data until the 1990s. Today, scientists have collected records from more than 32,000 land stations and more than 1.2mobservations of sea surface temperatures per year.

Both the number of stations included and the methodology used by global surface temperature datasets have changed over time. Rather than compare different versions of existing datasets, it is much simpler to analyse all the raw temperature records available today and compare them to the adjusted data. This lets scientists isolate just the effect of the adjustments.

Conclusion

With almost 200 years of raw data to work with, adjustments are a necessary part of the methodology for scientists constructing long-term global temperature records. But most of these adjustments are small and they have relatively little impact on temperature records over the past few decades.

The most significant account for the shift from buckets to ship intakes in ocean temperature records in the 1930s and 1940s, and these changes are well-understood by scientists. And, contrary to popular belief, adjustments actually reduce, rather than increase, the amount of warming experienced globally over the past century.

Methodological footnote

The global, land and ocean temperature records from raw and adjusted data shown in the article were constructed as follows:

Land: Both raw and adjusted land temperature data was obtained from the Global Historical Climatological Network Monthly Version 4. Stations records were converted into anomalies with respect to a 1961-1990 baseline period. Stations with fewer than 10 years overlap with the baseline period were discarded. Stations were assigned to 5×5 latitude/longitude grid cells. Anomalies for each month were averaged within each grid cell. A global land temperature estimate was calculated by an area-weighted average of grid cells for each month.

Ocean: Raw ocean temperature records from ships and buoys are available from ICOADS. For this analysis, an unadjusted gridded product provided by HadSST3 was used. Adjusted ocean temperature records were taken from the ERSSTv4 gridded product.

Global: Global land/ocean temperatures were estimated by weighted combination of land and ocean temperature, with weights of 0.71 for ocean and 0.29 for land representing their relative portion of the Earth’s surface.

Note: The author of this article was a member of the team that produced the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. In addition, he is the lead author on the paper mentioned assessing the Karl et al 2015 buoy corrections and the paper on US climate reference network comparisons.

Tomorrow The Australian will be publishing a story about changes the Bureau of Meteorolgy has made to temperature records The opening para reads: "The Bureau of Meteorology has orf]dered a full scale review of temperature recording equipment and procedures after the peak weather agency was caught tampering wtth cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations".

Try as you might Skeptical Science does not have the fire power to effectively repudiate these claims and as is often the case, perception is reality.

00

Moderator Response:

[JH] Sloganeering snipped.

[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

My apologies I clearly did not make it clear what I was trying to demonstrate. The first part of my post was a cut and paste of the report in The Australian on Monday August 1.

The second partg was attempting, very badly it seems, to point out that despite the best efforts of SkS to disseminate the facts on AGW, it could not match the number of people who would read the piece in The Australian and possibly be influenced by it . As I wrote, perception is reality and for many readers that piece now may well be reality. Donald Trump by withdrawing from Paris has clearly shown just how well perception can serve to change reality.I hope that explains more clearly the rationale for my post and can only apologise once again for my inadequacies

00

Moderator Response:

[JH] For future reference, please clearly designate direct quotes by explicitly stating and linking to the source and deliniating the material quoted with the use of quotation marks or the blockquote feature. Deliniating quoted material with itlaic font is also acceptable.

I would argue that the following is a better understanding of the claim that Perception is Reality:

What a person wants to believe is what they will believe and claim to be reality. If there is actual evidence/better understanding that contradicts their belief and they resist better understanding the matter then they are in deliberate Denial.

Everyone cannot be free to believe whatever they want when there is independently verifiable evidence/experience related to the matter. Spiritual beliefs are one of the few items where everyone truly can be equally correct while having seemingly inconsistent beliefs (no matter how numerous or powerful a spiritual group of people claiming that their way of believing is the only correct one has become).

Moderator @4 in my defence I did state the opening paragraph was from The Australian and then used inverted commas to delineate the opening paragraph from the Australian and although I did not give a link I did state the source. I will be more careful should the occasion arise in the future to ensure I abide by the rules.

OPOF@5

"What a person wants to believe is what they will believe and claim to be reality. If there is actual evidence/better understanding that contradicts their belief and they resist better understanding the matter then they are in deliberate Denial."

Your definition fits many of the commenters to The Australian and is why I believe that the report will gain traction with many readers.

A nation that has developed a large population of people eager to live a life in Denial/Delusion has no future. It can only have perceptions of temporary regional popularity and profitability.

And humanity must have a future. So, to paraphrase John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty": The grown-ups on this amazing planet whose thoughts and actions are based on rational consideration of the best awareness and understanding of what is going on to sustainably correct/develop things for the better future of all of humanity (John Stuart Mill's "...moved by rational consideration of distant motives...") will have to act to protect the future of humanity by disappointing and angering those who have grown-up wanting to believe whatever they want to excuse what they want to get away with.

As John Stuart Mill stated in "On Liberty" (my inserted wording to apply it to a subset of humanity), “If (a) society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, (that) society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

The unacceptability of burning fossil fuels, and the likely need for leadership to act to correct incorrect damaging unsustainable development in the marketplace, was internationally established in the 1972 Stockholm Conference.

The lack of leadership to address the problem was plainly pointed out in the follow-up 1987 "Our Common Future" which includes the following blunt statement about the failure of business and government leadership (because it is driven by popularity and profitability - my suggested understanding).

"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."

The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (and any future improvement of them made for Good Reason with new awareness and better understanding) clearly need to become the most popular (the highest level) measure of acceptability of the actions of leadership in business and government.

So what you are pointing out requires action by you directed at your leaders and your circle of influence. Climate scientists are continuing to expand awareness and improve the understanding of what is going on in their field. What their continued efforts have done is expose the fatal flaws of a system that is based on popularity and profitability allowing people to develop unsustainable delusions of prosperitry and opportunity.

The reality is that many of those who have tried to continue to develop on the unsustainable damaging pathways that can be regionally temporarily popular and profitable will suffer the greatest required change to their "incorrectly developed perceptions and beliefs" (easily perceived as a personal harm to be feared - but incorrect to be thought of that way).

00

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.